What is the Age of Accountability?

[jimmyjimmy]

. . .My position is that we aren't condemned for individual sins, but for a life that's worthless or even damaging to others.

"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire."

 

[hedrick]

"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire."

Don't you think that section of Jesus' teaching has a certain aspect of hyperbole? He goes on to talk about amputating parts of our anatomy. I don't think for a minute that we would go to hell for calling someone "you fool." There's nothing in teaching about judgement to suggest that.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Don't you think that section of Jesus' teaching has a certain aspect of hyperbole? He goes on to talk about amputating parts of our anatomy. I don't think for a minute that we would go to hell for calling someone "you fool." There's nothing in teaching about judgement to suggest that.

That's a good question, and I just got into a debate with my pastor about it. My point was that Jesus wasn't giving a way to be saved when He talked about cutting off limbs.

There's nothing in teaching about judgement to suggest that." Other than the verse I quoted?

 

[hedrick]

That's a good question, and I just got into a debate with my pastor about it. My point was that Jesus wasn't giving a way to be saved when He talked about cutting off limbs.

There's nothing in teaching about judgement to suggest that." Other than the verse I quoted?

A few years ago I had a 7th grade student with Asperger's Syndrome. I was unable to convince him that the thing about cutting was intended non-literally. What's your pastor's excuse?

Yes, other than that verse.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

A few years ago I had a 7th grade student with Asperger's Syndrome. I was unable to convince him that the thing about cutting was intended non-literally. What's your pastor's excuse?

Yes, other than that verse.

I don't know why he took the position that he did, but I decided I would not go back there after our discussion.

 

[Tangible]

Question:
Did God spare the children of the Canaanites from being killed along with the rest of their tribes? (Deuteronomy 7:1-6) Was he neutral toward the infants and children of the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites?

Answer:
The children would have eternal life... anyone who had not reached a state of mental capacity to understand sin or right and wrong.

Question:
Did he instruct the Israelites to spare the children and bring them along with them into the Promised Land?

Answer:No

Question:
Do you think the children of the Canaanites were any more guilty or sinful than any other children before or since? Or any less?

Answer:No

What do you think happened to the children of the Canaanites after they were killed by the Israelites? Were they given a place in Abraham's Bosom like the children of Israel who believed the promises of God, or were they condemned with all the others of their tribes? If so, why?

Answer:Yes... due to not being accountable.

Now, let me add a twist to these situations.

There are many who have studied the times and people of the pre flood and post flood eras. From there findings and there teachings I have come to a belief in why these women and children were not spared as was typical in war times.

You can investigate this for yourself, but you probably won't.

The reason is simple but controversial because it goes into details and facts of these times that people have a hard time accepting.

This reason is.... before the flood..."all flesh was corrupted" except Noah, his wife and three sons. Noah and his family were clean and pure human DNA.

Noah picked three wives for his sons. They were NOT of pure DNA.

Without getting to technical, with the curse of Ham's son, this impure DNA rears it's ugly head again and thus we get Nimrod, the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites.

These were remnants of the pre flood "corruption of all flesh" and God was ending each bloodline and, most importantly, did not want the Israelite's to take them as wives and corrupt the bloodline to Christ. Period.

Now, I have not looked any deeper BUT..... if these people were, in fact, Nephilim... they were not pure human DNA and may not of even had the option of salvation.

Like I said, you can research this for yourself and you will find that nephilim were hybrids had no chance for redemption. The souls of dead nephilim is where demons come from..

This would then mean that no woman or child would have had the opportunity for salvation anyway.

Thanks be to God that we aren't saved or lost through our DNA! Eugenics has no place in the kingdom of God.

 

[Tangible]

So, it is not a conscious choice that I made to accept Christ? It was the Holy spirit controlling me?

The only way you could possibly choose to acknowledge Christ as your Savior is if God had already granted you his gift of Faith through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. When God acts to convert an individual, it is his will that is converted. The natural man cannot comprehend the things of God because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[JacksBratt]

Law again. God has graciously ordained that his promises of forgiveness of sins, eternal life and salvation may be given through the means of the application of water connected with the commandment and the Word of God. He has charged his Church with being his body on earth to preach his Gospel and administer his Sacraments. Jesus told his disciples, the beginning of his Church, “The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” And also, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld."

Well, if you are referring to permitting them to hear the Gospel as "ritual" then sadly, yes, as far as we know from scripture. Of course, God may save whom he will.

According to scripture, we can have full assurance of such a child's salvation when they are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

According to scripture, we can have full assurance of such a child's salvation when they are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

You seem to put a lot of "faith" in salvation based on the application of water.

Are you saying that any infant, if they die even at the age of one year, who has not been baptized, does not have salvation?

What happens if an infant, or autistic child, or cerebral palsy adult or any mentally handicapped person of any age who cannot even talk or clean themselves physically, never gets baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and dies.

 

[JacksBratt]

Thanks be to God that we aren't saved or lost through our DNA! Eugenics has no place in the kingdom of God.

If you were to research this, you would understand.

I don't, however, see you ever researching this.

 

[Tangible]

You seem to put a lot of "faith" in salvation based on the application of water.

Thanks! But remember, baptism is not just plain water, but it is the water included in God’s command and combined with God’s word.

It's the word of God in and with the water that does such wonderful things, along with the faith which trusts this word of God in the water. For without God’s word the water is plain water and no Baptism. But with the word of God it is a Baptism, that is, a life-giving water, rich in grace, and a washing of the new birth in the Holy Spirit.

Are you saying that any infant, if they die even at the age of one year, who has not been baptized, does not have salvation?

Law again? God has promised salvation to all his children who are baptized. Outside of baptism we simply have no such clear and certain promise in which we can trust.

What happens if an infant, or autistic child, or cerebral palsy adult or any mentally handicapped person of any age who cannot even talk or clean themselves physically, never gets baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and dies.

Well, first of all, people with cerebral palsy are normally intellectually astute. Their limitations are physical, not mental.

Otherwise, the fate of those like you mentioned is the same as anyone else. If they have been graciously given the gift of faith in Jesus Christ they have also been granted forgiveness of sin and eternal life. Baptism is not the only means God uses to save sinners, but baptism is indeed one way through which God acts to save us.

 

[Tangible]

If you were to research this, you would understand.

I don't, however, see you ever researching this.

You're right. I have more pressing matters to attend. Like arguing with people on the internet.

Why don't you start a thread on that and see what happens?

 

[JacksBratt]

Thanks! But remember, baptism is not just plain water, but it is the water included in God’s command and combined with God’s word.

It's the word of God in and with the water does such wonderful things, along with the faith which trusts this word of God in the water. For without God’s word the water is plain water and no Baptism. But with the word of God it is a Baptism, that is, a life-giving water, rich in grace, and a washing of the new birth in the Holy Spirit.

Law again? God has promised salvation to all his children who are baptized. Outside of baptism we simply have no such clear and certain promise in which we can trust.
Well, first of all, people with cerebral palsy are normally intellectually astute. Their limitations are physical, not mental.

Otherwise, the fate of those like you mentioned is the same as anyone else. If they have been graciously given the gift of faith in Jesus Christ they have also been granted forgiveness of sin and eternal life. Baptism is not the only means God uses to save sinners, but baptism is indeed one way through which God acts to save us.

Ok.............

Enough with the vague statements.

What in the world is:
1/ "If they have been graciously given the gift of faith in Jesus Christ"?

What is this "IF"? Do we not have assurance? Do we not have a certainty? Do we stumble along with doubt?

2/ "baptism is not just plain water,"?

What is this "special" water? I was baptized in a tank of water from our city water supply. Am I covered?

3/ "Outside of baptism we simply have no such clear and certain promise in which we can trust."

Outside of baptism... now......that sounds like law and works.... baptism doing the saving. Does that not take away from the work of Christ? Is it not "belief" in the Lord Jesus Christ? Now it is baptism that saves? Ya.......that is works and law.

4/ "Otherwise, the fate of those like you mentioned is the same as anyone else."

"Otherwise" meaning "not baptized", ..... right?

What is the fate of those?



From what I can see and read, you have heavy reliance on baptism. Not just any baptism but with some special water and words of God.

The bible teaches a much different view..... It is faith. Faith that Christ was the messiah. Faith that His death, burial and resurrection were sufficient for my salvation. Faith that I cannot do anything, of my own accord or actions to bring my salvation. Faith that admitting my guilt and asking forgiveness will save me.

Your pointing fingers at others for their relying on "law" when your whole concept is based on legalistic baptism.

Baptism is the obedience of those who are already saved, to profess their commitment to faith in Christ.

 

[98cwitr]

Whether concupiscence is sin for which God holds us accountable was one of the major debates between the Roman Catholic church and the Reformers during the Reformation. The Catholics held that there is a distinction between sins, that concupiscence was not a damnable sin, and that baptism only was effective in removing original sin and not for actual sin. The Reformers held that there is no distinction between sins, that both concupiscence and actual sins are mortal sins for which Christ died, and that through baptism God acts to forgive all sins both actual and otherwise.

If original sin was removed at infant baptism then kids wouldn't sin. I can't imagine still trying to hold onto such logic. Original sin is the causation of actual sin. SMH.

 

[JacksBratt]

If original sin was removed at infant baptism then kids wouldn't sin. I can't imagine still trying to hold onto such logic. Original sin is the causation of actual sin. SMH.

I agree.

Baptism of an infant is false security.

That child could grow up to be an amazing child for God.
It could also grow up to be a flaming atheist and denounce Christ from the mountain top.

 

[Tangible]

Ok.............

Enough with the vague statements.

I've tried to be as explicit as possible. I'm sorry we're not understanding each other very well. I'll try to be more clear.

What in the world is:
1/ "If they have been graciously given the gift of faith in Jesus Christ"?

What is this "IF"? Do we not have assurance? Do we not have a certainty? Do we stumble along with doubt?

Do you subscribe to the Reformation solas? That we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone? If so, then you know that saving faith in Jesus Christ is not something that we produce from within ourselves, it is a gift that God graciously gives us (Ephesians 2). So the "if" in my statement was meant to indicate that some have been given the gift of faith and some haven't. If you are a believer, you can rest assured that you have been given faith. If you are an unbeliever, you either have not been given the gift of faith or you have rejected the gift once given.

So in Christ God is reconciling us to himself. We can completely depend on what Christ alone has done for us and for our salvation apart from any supposed merit or worthiness on our part. Believe it!

2/ "baptism is not just plain water,"?

What is this "special" water? I was baptized in a tank of water from our city water supply. Am I covered?

I wonder if you carefully read what I cited earlier.

Baptism is not about the water, although water is involved. Baptism is about the word of God that is in and with the water. The water does nothing but convey the word and serve as a physical sign to which God has attached his promise. I hope you believe that God's word is living and active, that it accomplishes the purpose for which he sends it? If so, you will readily see that the same word of God that called the universe into existence, that raised people from the dead, is also the same word that now calls each new believer into new life in Christ. When God speaks, things happen - real things, spiritual things, things that have eternal power. We can trust God's word completely to accomplish what it says. God has given us his promises, and God never breaks his word.

I would be glad to give you at least five scripture passages that clearly show what God accomplishes in us through Holy Baptism if you are unfamiliar with them.

3/ "Outside of baptism we simply have no such clear and certain promise in which we can trust."

Outside of baptism... now......that sounds like law and works.... baptism doing the saving. Does that not take away from the work of Christ? Is it not "belief" in the Lord Jesus Christ? Now it is baptism that saves? Ya.......that is works and law.

Is it still by works if God is the one working? You are still understanding baptism as law when it is perfectly clear from scripture that baptism is visible gospel, God acting to save sinners. How can it take away from the work of Christ when it is through his word with the water in baptism that God gives to the individual all the benefits of Christ's works and merits done on our behalf for our salvation?

4/ "Otherwise, the fate of those like you mentioned is the same as anyone else

."

"Otherwise" meaning "not baptized", ..... right?

What is the fate of those?

Yes, perhaps I was unclear. Those not baptized are either saved or not depending on whether or not God has granted them faith in Jesus Christ through his word by some other means than baptism.

From what I can see and read, you have heavy reliance on baptism. Not just any baptism but with some special water and words of God.

I wonder if you're playing with me. That's quite a twist on what I actually meant. There is no special water. There is only good old dihydrogen monoxide, but when it is combined with the living, powerful, efficacious, performative word of God it can do miraculous things.

The bible teaches a much different view..... It is faith. Faith that Christ was the messiah. Faith that His death, burial and resurrection were sufficient for my salvation. Faith that I cannot do anything, of my own accord or actions to bring my salvation. Faith that admitting my guilt and asking forgiveness will save me.

There is no reason to separate faith and baptism. In the scriptural view of baptism God is acting to justify, and how would he justify other than through faith in Christ?

Some will question whether or not an infant is capable of having faith in Christ. Faith does not necessarily mean a conscious, intentional act of the will. Faith is simply trust, and infants can easily be shown to trust their mother or their father, even to the exclusion of other people. The faith of an infant is a faith appropriate to their awareness and ability. John the Baptizer is shown in scripture to have reacted in faith to the presence of Our Lord in utero, even before he was born.

But it is not the faithful actions from us that determines whether or not we possess saving faith. The gift depends on the giver, not on the one receiving the gift. If God is giving his gifts, he may certainly give them to whomever he pleases.

You're pointing fingers at others for their relying on "law" when your whole concept is based on legalistic baptism.

Well, that's a false statement. I have been pointing out whenever you have been using a law-based view of baptism in an attempt to catch me saying that baptism is required for salvation. That's not what I'm saying (for the record). God saves whom he will, through baptism or through some other means of proclaiming his word. The power is in the word. The word of the Gospel is the power of God for salvation.

Baptism is the obedience of those who are already saved, to profess their commitment to faith in Christ.

Please, please show me where this is found in scripture. It must be there somewhere because so many people believe it to be true despite scriptural passages to the contrary. I've never found it, though, try as I might, and no one has ever be able to show it to me.

Seriously. Please show me the scripture that this law-based view of baptism is based on.

 

[Tangible]

If original sin was removed at infant baptism then kids wouldn't sin. I can't imagine still trying to hold onto such logic. Original sin is the causation of actual sin. SMH.

True. It's not that original sin is removed in Holy Baptism, but that it is forgiven. We constantly sin, in commission and omission, in thought, word and deed, and yet each and every trespass is covered by the blood of Christ. That doesn't mean we will no longer sin.

Baptism gives us Christ, and in Christ we have the forgiveness of sins. We are justified and holy saints in Christ, though we also simultaneously continue to be sinners who sin.

I agree.

Baptism of an infant is false security.

Again, how more secure can someone be than in relying totally on the sure and certain promises of God?

That child could grow up to be an amazing child for God.
It could also grow up to be a flaming atheist and denounce Christ from the mountain top.

True. But this is also true of any Christian, regardless of how they were first brought into the family of God. Baptism isn't a magic charm. It only is effective if the faith in Christ given in baptism persists.

 

[JacksBratt]

I've tried to be as explicit as possible. I'm sorry we're not understanding each other very well. I'll try to be more clear.

Do you subscribe to the Reformation solas? That we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone? If so, then you know that saving faith in Jesus Christ is not something that we produce from within ourselves, it is a gift that God graciously gives us (Ephesians 2). So the "if" in my statement was meant to indicate that some have been given the gift of faith and some haven't. If you are a believer, you can rest assured that you have been given faith. If you are an unbeliever, you either have not been given the gift of faith or you have rejected the gift once given.

So in Christ God is reconciling us to himself. We can completely depend on what Christ alone has done for us and for our salvation apart from any supposed merit or worthiness on our part. Believe it!

I wonder if you carefully read what I cited earlier.

Baptism is not about the water, although water is involved. Baptism is about the word of God that is in and with the water. The water does nothing but convey the word and serve as a physical sign to which God has attached his promise. I hope you believe that God's word is living and active, that it accomplishes the purpose for which he sends it? If so, you will readily see that the same word of God that called the universe into existence, that raised people from the dead, is also the same word that now calls each new believer into new life in Christ. When God speaks, things happen - real things, spiritual things, things that have eternal power. We can trust God's word completely to accomplish what it says. God has given us his promises, and God never breaks his word.

I would be glad to give you at least five scripture passages that clearly show what God accomplishes in us through Holy Baptism if you are unfamiliar with them.

Is it still by works if God is the one working? You are still understanding baptism as law when it is perfectly clear from scripture that baptism is visible gospel, God acting to save sinners. How can it take away from the work of Christ when it is through his word with the water in baptism that God gives to the individual all the benefits of Christ's works and merits done on our behalf for our salvation?

Yes, perhaps I was unclear. Those not baptized are either saved or not depending on whether or not God has granted them faith in Jesus Christ through his word by some other means than baptism.

I wonder if you're playing with me. That's quite a twist on what I actually meant. There is no special water. There is only good old dihydrogen monoxide, but when it is combined with the living, powerful, efficacious, performative word of God it can do miraculous things.

There is no reason to separate faith and baptism. In the scriptural view of baptism God is acting to justify, and how would he justify other than through faith in Christ?

Some will question whether or not an infant is capable of having faith in Christ. Faith does not necessarily mean a conscious, intentional act of the will. Faith is simply trust, and infants can easily be shown to trust their mother or their father, even to the exclusion of other people. The faith of an infant is a faith appropriate to their awareness and ability. John the Baptizer is shown in scripture to have reacted in faith to the presence of Our Lord in utero, even before he was born.

But it is not the faithful actions from us that determines whether or not we possess saving faith. The gift depends on the giver, not on the one receiving the gift. If God is giving his gifts, he may certainly give them to whomever he pleases.

Well, that's a false statement. I have been pointing out whenever you have been using a law-based view of baptism in an attempt to catch me saying that baptism is required for salvation. That's not what I'm saying (for the record). God saves whom he will, through baptism or through some other means of proclaiming his word. The power is in the word. The word of the Gospel is the power of God for salvation.

Please, please show me where this is found in scripture. It must be there somewhere because so many people believe it to be true despite scriptural passages to the contrary. I've never found it, though, try as I might, and no one has ever be able to show it to me.

Seriously. Please show me the scripture that this law-based view of baptism is based on.

All this chatter is pointless.

I totally disagree with your views.

I am of the belief that a person can accept the salvation of Christ and not be baptized while still having eternal life.

Do I think that baptism is important? Of course I do. It is obedience to Christ. However, being baptized is an action that I do. It is a step I take and a conscious decision to participate in an event that I choose to do.

I was not saved by works, nor by any action of my own. So how could I be condemned by not "doing" something, like being baptized?

Secondly, an infant, if not baptized, or any human incapable of understanding concepts associated with right, wrong, heaven, hell, sin, salvation, if not baptized is in no worse scenario than if they were baptized.

Baptism of these people is the action of an outside person. Whether priest, vicar, mother or father..... the person in question had absolutely no input. So it matters not that the event took place or didn't. It only matters to the mislead people who believe that in some way they can "save" the child's soul by their actions.

Some poor child with no connection to a church or people who could care less about any religion, is not going to be held accountable for things beyond their control....they will not be lost.

There is no need to run around the globe baptizing every child lest they be lost.

We are saved by the blood of Christ and ANYONE who acknowledges that they need salvation and that Christ is the source of that salvation while believing on the actions of Christ at Calvary.... will be saved.
It is repenting of your old life and a choice....infants and mentally incapable people who cannot make the choice are innocent.

It is a free gift, no works required. No baptism, no knocking on doors in your neighborhood, no money donation, no paying in penance,,,,,, none.. Just ask Christ and He will give you eternal life.

 

[98cwitr]

"It's not that original sin is removed in Holy Baptism, but that it is forgiven"

Are you suggesting we need to be forgiven for the sins that Adam committed?

 

[Tangible]

"It's not that original sin is removed in Holy Baptism, but that it is forgiven"

Are you suggesting we need to be forgiven for the sins that Adam committed?

I'll just let St Paul answer this one. Here Paul, you can use my keyboard right here.

Thanks, John. This is Paul. In my letter to the Romans, I wrote the following ...

Romans 5
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[JacksBratt]

"It's not that original sin is removed in Holy Baptism, but that it is forgiven"

Are you suggesting we need to be forgiven for the sins that Adam committed?

We are born with a sinful nature, due to Adams sin.
Baptism cannot forgive anything. Only Christ can forgive and He will only forgive if asked. How can a child ask for forgiveness when they don't even know what it is.

David made it clear that children go to heaven. There is no need to baptize your baby. When it gets older it will make it's own choice. Nothing you can do in it's infancy will save it from condemnation if, when it is mature, it denies Christ.